The NY Times Obtained Some Trump Tax Docs Which Suggest He’s Avoided Paying Federal Taxes For Many Years

During the first presidential debate, Donald Trump sort of admitted to not paying federal taxes. To be perfectly fair, he did not say these actual words but only admitted to feeling “smart” after Hillary Clinton suggested that he doesn’t pay taxes: “Maybe he doesn’t want the American people, all of you watching tonight, to know that he’s paid nothing in federal taxes.” Trump not only felt proud of the possibility of not paying taxes, but he also claimed they’d be “squandered” if he did pay them … presumably, on unimportant stuff like the military, infrastructure, social services for the poor, elderly, and disabled, etc.

Trump visited Bill O’Reilly a few days later to “clarify” that he didn’t truly admit to not paying taxes, but he still thinks that — if he didn’t pay them — this would qualify him as brilliant “because tax is a big payment.” All along, the Trump campaign has dragged its feet over releasing Trump’s taxes, which has only encouraged media outlets to pursue them, and The New York Times has now secured part of Trump’s 1995 tax records, which could explain why Trump has not wanted them out in the wild.

While a portion of one year of tax documents may not seem significant, the pages reveal an astronomical declared loss that sure makes it look like Trump hasn’t paid federal taxes in almost two decades. And while avoiding taxes in this way is technically legal, Trump appears to have greatly benefited from his own terrible business practices:

Donald J. Trump declared a $916 million loss on his 1995 income tax returns, a tax deduction so substantial it could have allowed him to legally avoid paying any federal income taxes for up to 18 years, records obtained by The New York Times show.

The 1995 tax records, never before disclosed, reveal the extraordinary tax benefits that Mr. Trump, the Republican presidential nominee, derived from the financial wreckage he left behind in the early 1990s through mismanagement of three Atlantic City casinos, his ill-fated foray into the airline business and his ill-timed purchase of the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan.

You can see the tax documents here. The Times spoke with tax experts who point out that this 1995 declared loss effectively set up Trump to eliminate $916 million in taxable income, which could have been spread out over almost two decades. Again, this was a perfectly legal tactic, but even so, Trump’s own financial failures could have allowed him to shield $50 million per year from federal taxes for 18 years. Since much of his campaign is built upon his business prowess, this looks pretty sad.

The Times dug in further by contacting Jack Mitnick, the attorney and CPA who filed Trump’s taxes in 1995. He confirms that the stated $916 million loss was “legit” and cleared up an odd font discrepancy with a bug associated with his 1995 software. The scant portion of these documents obtained by The Times doesn’t confirm Trump’s claimed $2 billion net worth but does shed light on Trump’s business practices. Further, Mitnick states that Trump “clearly grasped” that the tax code could “protect him” and that Trump understood the “critical role taxes would play in helping him build wealth.”

You can read more of The Times analysis right here. Meanwhile, enjoy these past Trump tweets in a different light.

You know what is the worst part of @BarackObama's Tuesday speech playing class warfare–we paid for it with our tax dollars.

This method of deferring loses is 100% necessary for any investment system to work. No one’s 401K would make money without. Let’s say you have 10,000 invested and you gain 1,000 and capital gains taxes are 20%. 200 in taxes right? Not really. Say you 5,000 in pets.com and 5,000 in Apple. At the end of the year your pets.com is worthless but your Apple is now work 11,000. Without claiming losses your capital gains taxes would be on that 6,000 (1,500). So at the end of the year you end up with 9,500 out of your original 10,000 and lost money. Without claiming losses people would have two choices, don’t invest or invest everything one thing and hope it doesn’t tank. Deferring is necessary because people don’t hold stocks or investments for the calendar year. It’s fluid. No one should be angry that he deferred his losses for 20 years, be angry that people still claim hes a business genius

Nope. One of the issues with our system is that the two sides have incredibly loyal and sometimes delusional bases. They don’t accept any sort of criticism of their party or candidate and these are the ones that get them elected. That also highlights the sad state of the average voter here. We don’t vote enough consistently to really force a change to the system. Here’s an example of why this won’t have really any impact. It highlights a Trump supporter but there are those like it on the other side as well.[www.washingtonpost.com]